1995SCMR849 (PLP)
Mst. TABASSAM BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias BOOB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR849 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Saleem Akhtar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. TABASSAM BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias BOOB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR849 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR849 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Saleem Akhtar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR849 (PLP) (Mst. TABASSAM BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias BOOB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Imam Ali Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Dil Muhammad Tarrar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 15‑5‑1993 passed in CrA. No. 41/1989 & C.R. No. 69/1989). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to appraise the evidence for proper and safe administration of justice in the light of the contention that the observation in the High Court's judgment disbelieving the eye‑witnesses was based on surmises and presumptions having no cogent reason and that one of the eye‑witnesses was son‑in‑law of the deceased who had no enmity with any of the parties.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge of the High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge of murder of Sardar Khan. Respondent No. 1 was convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to death with fine of Rs.20,000 or in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for two years while respondent No. 2 was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.29,000 or in default to undergo R.I. for two years.
2. Briefly the facts as stated in the F.I.R. are that on the night between 4/5‑6‑1983 Mst. Tabassam Begum was sleeping with her family members on the roof of her house. Her husband Sardar Khan deceased was sleeping in the courtyard. In the Haveli adjacent to their house her son‑in‑law Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Hussain, nephew of Sardar Khan were sleeping. At about midnight on ringing of the bell Mst. Tabassam Begum, the informant/petitioner and her husband Sardar Khan got up. Sardar Khan went towards the gate of the Haveli while the petitioner was watching from the roof of her house. She saw Ashfaq, her step‑son standing there with his friend Arshad. Ashfaq asked Muhammad Arshad to fire who did so with his rifle hitting Sardar Khan on his chest and back. The fire shots attracted Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Hussain, who tried to apprehend the assailants, but they threatened. with dire consequence and ran away. It was stated that the incident was witnessed by her (Mst. Tabassam Begum), her step‑daughter Mst. Bashiran Bibi; Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Hussain. Sardar Khan expired while he was being taken to the hospital. The learned trial Court convicted both the respondents as stated above, but the learned Judges of the High Court holding that the eye‑witnesses were related to each other and the statement was contradictory, acquitted the respondents.
3. Mr. Talib H. Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the observation in the impugned judgment disbelieving the eye‑witnesses is based on surmises and presumptions and without any cogent reason. The learned counsel pointed out that one of the eye‑witnesses was son‑in‑law of the deceased, who had no enmity with any of the parties. In our view the case requires appraisal of the evidence for proper and safe administration of justice. Leave is granted. Issue non‑bailable warrants for arrest of the N.H.Q./T-107/S Leave granted.